undefined | Better HN

0 pointszugi3d ago0 comments

Stallman tried to introduce the term "intellectual monopoly", which fits better, since they really are monopolies granted by the government for limited periods of time, intended to promote progress in science and the useful arts.

"Property" was chosen specifically as a bait and switch. It tries to get people to take a concept that has been understood for thousands of years for physical objects, and apply it to this novel century-or-two long experiment for encouraging the production of easily-copyable things.

0 comments

SideQuark2d ago

> It tries to get people to take a concept that has been understood for thousands of years for physical objects

That's false. Property used to mean a set of rights that gives legal control over valuable things, not limited to simply "physical objects", has been around for thousands of years. Ancients used it for future payments, interest (which could be traded), and much more.

Ancient Syrians (600BC) gave exclusive rights for breadmakers to make certain breads for a year window, and these were property rights, tradeable, sellable, had futures, etc. Ancient Greeks had a patent system for "a new refinement in luxury" that were property rights. Athenaeus (200AD) describes the system in place then where inventors could own their inventions and be the only one to profit for some time.

These are all property rights - something owned by a person, sellable, tradeable, has value, exclusive use. That you (and too many others) seem to think property can only be a "physical object" is as short-sighted as some who claim property can only be land.

JumpCrisscross3d ago

> since they really are monopolies granted by the government

This is property.

__MatrixMan__3d ago

There are multiple usages of the word.

One of them refers to tangible things, was first codified more than 5000 years ago, and is almost entirely uncontroversial.

The other was popular in 1700's France re: their system of privileges, and the people found it so onerous that they embarked on a campaign of executing nobility until it seemed like the concept was good and dead.

We can use the word however we like, it's just a word, but if we conduct ourselves as if they're the same sort of thing, which France was doing at that time, we're in for the same sort of pain.

So what I'm saying is that its a bad idea for us to let data be property.

JumpCrisscross3d ago

> One of them refers to tangible things, was first codified more than 5000 years ago, and is almost entirely uncontroversial

Which definition are you referring to?

Debts, wholly intangible legal fictions, have been treated as property for thousands of years.

__MatrixMan__3d ago

I was thinking of the code of Hammurabi as the settled one, and membership in a trade guild--which you had to buy from the government--as the controversial one.

I wouldn't classify debt as an uncontroversial kind of property. In medieval Europe, Christians were prohibited from owning debt by their religions (Jews weren't, so they ended up being the lenders, which is probably why the stereotypes exist today).

I'd argue that the fungibility/resale of debt is a bad idea because it takes on weird properties when too much of it accumulates in one place.

2 more replies

simonh3d ago

All, or at least most property rights are monopoly rights anyway. I have a monopoly right over my house, and my car, my bank balance. That's just what ownership means.

ekianjo3d ago

Those rights are very flimsy actually. The government can seize your house, your car, and your money anytime. Hardly a monopoly when a third party can break it at will.

AlecSchueler3d ago

That the state which grants you your right can take them away doesn't make them flimsy.

And it's certainly more than "hardly" a monopoly. If the government gives a certain company right to operate on train track infrastructure but denies the same to every other company, then does that first company hardly have a monopoly?

ekianjo3d ago

Large companies that have money lobby governments to ensure they do not threaten their monopolies. Individuals can't do that.

BobaFloutist3d ago

By that standard, nobody has any right to anything. I think it's pretty widely understood that rights range from aspirational descriptions of a just world to widely accepted legal consensus.

simonh3d ago

Sure. That’s how rights work. It’s why we need to keep on fighting for them when necessary.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

SideQuark2d ago

> It tries to get people to take a concept that has been understood for thousands of years for physical objects

JumpCrisscross3d ago

> since they really are monopolies granted by the government

This is property.

__MatrixMan__3d ago

There are multiple usages of the word.

One of them refers to tangible things, was first codified more than 5000 years ago, and is almost entirely uncontroversial.

We can use the word however we like, it's just a word, but if we conduct ourselves as if they're the same sort of thing, which France was doing at that time, we're in for the same sort of pain.

So what I'm saying is that its a bad idea for us to let data be property.

JumpCrisscross3d ago

> One of them refers to tangible things, was first codified more than 5000 years ago, and is almost entirely uncontroversial

Which definition are you referring to?

Debts, wholly intangible legal fictions, have been treated as property for thousands of years.

__MatrixMan__3d ago

I was thinking of the code of Hammurabi as the settled one, and membership in a trade guild--which you had to buy from the government--as the controversial one.

I'd argue that the fungibility/resale of debt is a bad idea because it takes on weird properties when too much of it accumulates in one place.

2 more replies

simonh3d ago

All, or at least most property rights are monopoly rights anyway. I have a monopoly right over my house, and my car, my bank balance. That's just what ownership means.

ekianjo3d ago

Those rights are very flimsy actually. The government can seize your house, your car, and your money anytime. Hardly a monopoly when a third party can break it at will.

AlecSchueler3d ago

That the state which grants you your right can take them away doesn't make them flimsy.

ekianjo3d ago

Large companies that have money lobby governments to ensure they do not threaten their monopolies. Individuals can't do that.

BobaFloutist3d ago

By that standard, nobody has any right to anything. I think it's pretty widely understood that rights range from aspirational descriptions of a just world to widely accepted legal consensus.

simonh3d ago

Sure. That’s how rights work. It’s why we need to keep on fighting for them when necessary.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse